Automotive Air Conditioning Information Forum

So I have a question for the brain trust. Of course this is related in a round about way to my favorite behemoth the 2000 7.3 excursion. With the help of this forum I’m getting just about all I can out of that system but I can’t help but compare it to my wife’s 2008 suburban. Her car has ice cold AC all the time. My truck not so much. So why is that? Is it that Chevy builds a better AC system? Was there a change in technology drastic enough in 7 years to make it that much better? So in the interest of research I have compiled a lot specs I will list here for comparison sake.

Size wise they are closer in dimensions than one might think.
Excursion:
Total cargo volume: 145.4
137 WB
1st row: headroom 41, shoulder 68.3, leg 42.3, hip 67.5
2nd row: headroom 38.6 shoulder 67, leg 40.5, hip 66.9
3rd row: headroom 38.6 Shoulder 64.9, leg 39, Hip 52.5

Suburban:
Total cargo volume: 137
130 WB
1st row: Headroom 41.1, shoulder 65.3, leg 41.3, Hip 64.4
2nd row: Headroom 38.5, shoulder 65.2, leg 39.5, Hip 61.8
3rd row: headroom 38.1, shoulder 64.7, leg 34.9, hip 49.4

So I don’t think that interior volume explains it.

So let’s look at AC specs:
Excursion:
Compressor: FS10
Condenser: 29.09W X 23.19H X .87 Thick = 674. SQ IN
Front Evap: 205x267x92 MM
Rear evap: 266x177x88 MM
Engine driven fan

Suburban:
Compressor: 10S20F
Condenser: 34.3W X 20.1H X .81 Thick = 689 SQ IN
Front Evap: 281x256x72.5 MM
Rear Evap: 282x176x72 MM
Electric Fan.

I couldn’t locate the actual specs for the compressors so that is still a bit of a wildcard. I also don’t have side by side pressure and temp readings. I will try and get some later this week just to see.

All that being said, what are y’all’s thoughts? Any ideas why there would be a large difference in interior comfort? It is pretty noticeable if you move from one to the other.

FS10 = 170cc displacement per revolution, likely the very smallest pulley that was available.

10S20 = 200cc displacement per revolution, probably also smallest pulley size.

Dual TXV systems will always outperform orifice tube front/TXV rear systems, so the Suburban would be better there also.

Crankshaft pulley size and compressor pulley size can be measured on both to find displacement per engine revolution. They are both double ended piston swashplate compressors, volumetric efficiency is probably comparable.

It's not as simple as Chevy does better than Ford, but in this case I do know that Ford was locked in to using Visteon compressors because of UAW agreements to keep plants producing. If they didn't use the FS10 they would have still been paying UAW guys to sweep the plant floor all day. Visteon did not have a 200cc swashplate compressor and I don't think the 115cc scroll was ready, scroll would have anyway been not just bad, but maybe throw the keys back at the dealer bad, at idle on a truck that big. The situation in even 2008 just wasn't the same, Ford could have easily sourced a 200cc compressor from Denso, I can't remember, but maybe HallaVisteon also had a 200 ish compressor in 2008.

So, not really technology but rather planning for consumer demand and trends. I think Ford was caught flat footed by the shift to larger SUVs, and decided to build the Excursion even though AC performance and probably other things wouldn’t be ideal.

That’s some great info!

I will measure the pulleys to see what kind of difference there is.

I didn’t realize that the suburban was dual txv I just looked on rock auto and saw an orifice tube listing and figured that it had an orifice tube/txv like the excursion. That makes a lot of sense.

I didn't check, I just assumed no 2008 would still be orifice, but it sure is, orifice front, TXV rear

That's some very informative information, DetroitAC. We tend to say an MFG just did a crappy job. It reminds us, or maybe just me. There are factors in all of today's production vehicles. Be it a small compressor or difficulty removing a condenser.

Thanks again for the info DetroitAC.

It’s fascinating to see what goes into the decisions that a manufacturer has to make.

Now does anyone know of a 200cc compressor that I could retrofit into my excursion……

I'm in Arizona desert, and we just last month moved from a 2005 Yukon XL Denali with 235K miles to a 2011 Yukon XL Denali with 73K miles. Both have dual AC and work great in the Arizona heat.

Note also that my 1998 and 2004 4-cylinder, 5-speeds also have great AC for the Arizona desert. They are significantly smaller inside space.

Pump capacity matters. Been saying it here for decades.

I get a big laugh every time an A6 gets swapped for a little SD508 on an old GM product. Then the shop blames the "new refrigerant" (134a)

I like the "throw the keys at the dealer" reference for the damn scroll pumps.

Okay so how about this:

TM-21 to replace the FS20

https://www.mcc-hvac.com/wp-content/upl ... et_web.pdf

This gets me 215cc per rev.

Dimensions are very close to the FS20 I would need to fabricate some spacers and possibly a longer belt and I would have to have a custom hose set made.

Tim actually stocks them.

Would I need to upsize anything else? Condenser etc?

Am I crazy?

Interesting approach. I assume you mean replacing the FS10 in the Ford?

Might not be too hard, I have never compared the gauge lines and mounting bolts on the two units. I have put V7's in places they were never used, so why not?